(Original post by BenC1997)
Indeed, however having looked at "Talk to Frank" and other websites (perhaps it has been downgraded on here?) it appears LSD is a Class A drug - so it being banned doesn't really go against my beliefs stated in this thread and in the manifesto.

Do I want LSD, or indeed any psychoactive drug, to be banned? No, I am in favour of drug liberalisation, I would rather they were not banned.

Do I want more research done into the effects, including possible health benefits, of psychoactive drugs? Most certainly, yes.

Thus, I see it as agreeable that I compromise with the former (my wish not to ban the drug) in the short term, in order to have both of my wishes (hopefully) realised in the long run.

Surely as the Government candidate you must have known that the legislation was going to the house when the by-election manifesto was written, so why include it in your manifesto at all? Especially when you are now essentially saying you will vote against what you claim to support. It is possible to conduct research without banning the drugs, which makes it seem less like a compromise and more like a party/government line being put forward to save face.

Do I want LSD, or indeed any psychoactive drug, to be banned? No, I am in favour of drug liberalisation, I would rather they were not banned.

Do I want more research done into the effects, including possible health benefits, of psychoactive drugs? Most certainly, yes.

Thus, I see it as agreeable that I compromise with the former (my wish not to ban the drug) in the short term, in order to have both of my wishes (hopefully) realised in the long run.

You're either in denial or are being duped by the Tories. You don't need to ban a drug to allow scientific research and the very liberal legislation that the government is now sneakily trying to repeal included provision for research. Did you read either bill? Because nothing you've said is reason for you to support B1025.

(Original post by Kay_Winters)
Surely as the Government candidate you must have known that the legislation was going to the house when the by-election manifesto was written, so why include it in your manifesto at all? Especially when you are now essentially saying you will vote against what you claim to support. It is possible to conduct research without banning the drugs, which makes it seem less like a compromise and more like a party/government line being put forward to save face.

Indeed, and as I mentioned the original bill included specific provision for scientific research so to say 'we got to ban it so we can study it' sounds like he hasn't read the original bill.

(Original post by RayApparently)
Indeed, and as I mentioned the original bill included specific provision for scientific research so to say 'we got to ban it so we can study it' sounds like he hasn't read the original bill.

The way I saw it, all the studying /research should be done prior to decriminalisation.